Time to get rid of offsides review

[EichHart]

What if they enter the zone offsides and 2 minutes goes back inside the zone and they score? There has to be a time limit to the offside review rule...

 

[WatchfulElm]

This is exactly why we do need a basic form of offside review.

Under my proposed rule, the officials skate over to the box and look at the play once in real speed from each angle available in the arena. They then make a ruling. If it's inconclusive, the goal stands.

Problem solved. You no longer get a total joke like the pictured 'goal,' and you no longer waste everyone's time by reviewing goals like the one in the OP for ten minutes and then going 'well, it looks like he was about three electrons offside, so therefore, no goal.'

Worst idea ever.

Either you enforce the rule or you don't. Bringing back a human factor on a rule that's pretty black and white would lead to all sorts of injustice and a lot more complaining. Imagine allowing a goal that's clearly offside to all TV viewers in an important playoffs game only because the refs are not allowed to watch the full review.

If you want to accelerate the process, the only logical way I see is : let Toronto do all the controversial calls and remove the refs from those decisions.

 

[MS]

The ability to review an offside should disappear past a certain point. You could do it a bunch of ways. 5 seconds after the puck enters the zone. If the defending team has possession. If the puck goes beyond the goal line. Whatever.

Calling back goals 20 seconds after a toenail offside is just ridiculous. Fans want to get the call right if it’s a direct continuation of an offside play, not this sort of thing.

 

[Yatzhee]

Meh, offside is offside, toenail or country mile.
As a Sabres fan I can honestly say I've seen just about everything unfortunate rules wise. From not enforcing them, a la no goal in 99 in a cup final, to the toe nail offside this game. Sometimes your the bat, sometimes your Jim Lorentz stick (yes, i remember that game). It is what it is.

 

[Breakers]

It definitely could have been handled better

 

[geebster]

It can't be impossible to automate offsides. Put a chip in the puck to get accurate tracking data and train an AI on it. Also chip in the puck to automate goals too.

 

[yada]

Offsides reviews should stay but

If the opposing team takes possession of the puck offsides should no longer be a thing.

Stop the slow motion and frame by frame reviews. Real speed reviews only.

 

[sabremike]

The rational behind the replay rule was to prevent Leon Stickle. In reality it's almost always used on calls that are virtually undetectable to the human eye like the farce that took place yesterday in Buffalo.

 

[Fraser28]

Nope. Either it's offsides or it isn't. An inch or a foot or a mile. Offsides is offsides. Challenges get the calls right.

Keeping them is 1000% the correct decision.

There is no good, reasonable, or logical argument for it. And "but much team lost" is not a reason. It's sour grapes and entitlement.

It’s funny how posts like yours show that some people can only see things in black and white. You’re missing the crucial nuances of the discussion, which makes your adamant aggressive nature kind of funny.

 

[hatterson]

Given that it’s not going anywhere (as much as I’d like to shoot it into the sun), an easy solution would be something like giving the crew a couple looks at full speed and maybe one at 1/2 or 1/4 speed.

If you can’t tell from multiple replays if it’s definitely offside without resorting to frame by frame analysis then it’s too close to call and let the advantage go to the attacking team (as it was called on the ice)

 

[egelband]

Should be that the offsides is judged to have been consequential or the goal in question came on the offside play/rush.
Another thought. With copius replays I suspect linesmen are a little reluctant to call offside when they're not 100% sure, letting them play on knowing there's replay as a failsafe. If the league eliminates or even severely restricts replay, the linesmen will blow the whistle a bit more often. But I think that's better than having goals pulled off the board.

 

[egelband]

I think the spirit of the rule was to stop guys goal-hanging. Not to negate nice rush goals.

 

[missionAvs]

The current review process makes it terrible IMO. I'm of the mind that the review should stay but that there should be a time limit (maybe 60 seconds) where the officials can review the play from different angles at real time. The whole look at a still shot frame for like 5 minutes is what's absolutely killing it. If they can't tell after 1 minute reviewing it in real time and still get it wrong, chalk it up to honest human error.

Also to add, if the other team gets possession of the puck at any point after the supposed offside event happened, it shouldn't be reviewable.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

This is the best case scenario. The complaints will only increase if they start putting a timer on the review, or whatever else.
Don't break the rules. No problem.

 

[Svechhammer]

There should be a time limit on how long the league has after a goal to initiate a review and there has to be a time limit on how long that review can last. Enough of the lengthy reviews over a small fraction of an inch decision.

Also, there has to be some kind of provision that negates an offside if the possession lasts long enough. 30 seconds in the zone after a chincy offside should be enough to overrule the initial zone entry and make it a good goal. Defense had time to regroup and recover.

 

[canuckslover10]

this is dumb its important to get the call right no matter by how much. You are probably the same person that complains about the refs too well this is an opportunity for them to correct those mistakes. You are thinking with emotions rather than your head.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Given that it’s not going anywhere (as much as I’d like to shoot it into the sun), an easy solution would be something like giving the crew a couple looks at full speed and maybe one at 1/2 or 1/4 speed.

If you can’t tell from multiple replays if it’s definitely offside without resorting to frame by frame analysis then it’s too close to call and let the advantage go to the attacking team (as it was called on the ice)

*slams desk* THANK YOU

The entire spirit of the rule was to prevent obvious offsides plays like the Duchene goal against Nashville, so if it isn't obvious enough in real-time to notice whether or not to overturn the call on the ice, it should not be overturned. This would prevent a lot of unnecessary reviews and help speed the game up.

 

[phrenssoa]

Should be that the offsides is judged to have been consequential or the goal in question came on the offside play/rush.

That’s way too subjective, and would lead to even more complaints from everyone. The current rule is black and white, which is how it should be. It helps to preserve the integrity of the game.

 

[TGWL]

What if they enter the zone offsides and 2 minutes goes back inside the zone and they score? There has to be a time limit to the offside review rule...

The problem with a timer is that it doesn't negate that possession in their zone still took place when it shouldn't have. Saying they had ample amount of time to stop the attacking team doesn't change that. I hate that coaches are watching the replay before even calling for a review. To me reviews should be based on thinking the ref got it wrong. Not fully knowing by already seeing video evidence. But that's the direction all leagues have gone in.

 

[Satanphonehome]

Pull the camera back and think about the rules and why they exist: to stop a team from getting an unfair advantage.

About 10 seconds after the missed offside and 10 seconds before the goal, the Oilers won a puck battle and attempted to exit the zone. Tuch swept at Nurse knocking the puck off his stick. His follow-through hit Nurse's skate and Nurse went down.

I'm not commenting on whether or not is was a trip, merely stating that in real time it looked like it could have been. We've all seen countless plays like this many times. The refs did not think it was a penalty in real time and play continued.

I think most would agree that the "trip" had far more impact in terms of creating an advantage in play than the offside.

Why must the NHL rewind the tape to make sure the call at the blue line was correct, but ignore the Nurse play?

The NHL does not review penalties because it knows the game is full of plays that could be called either way and it thinks maintaining the flow of the game is more important than "getting it right".

I'm with the OP: the same logic should stand with offside.

 

[Shark Finn]

Not that many goals are even reviewable because of a potential offside ruling. C'mon now.

 

[TGWL]

Pull the camera back and think about the rules and why they exist: to stop a team from getting an unfair advantage.

About 10 seconds after the missed offside and 10 seconds before the goal, the Oilers won a puck battle and attempted to exit the zone. Tuch swept at Nurse knocking the puck off his stick. His follow-through hit Nurse's skate and Nurse went down.

I'm not commenting on whether or not is was a trip, merely stating that in real time it looked like it could have been. We've all seen countless plays like this many times. The refs did not think it was a penalty in real time and play continued.

I think most would agree that the "trip" had far more impact in terms of creating an advantage in play than the offside.

Why must the NHL rewind the tape to make sure the call at the blue line was correct, but ignore the Nurse play?

The NHL does not review penalties because it knows the game is full of plays that could be called either way and it thinks maintaining the flow of the game is more important than "getting it right".

I'm with the OP: the same logic should stand with offside.

Because one is a judgement call missed by the ref and other is a black and white stoppage rule.

 

[trader997]

Not a fan of Mcdavid but he's right, these reviews are now a joke. If it takes you 15 minutes to review a possible offside, does it really matter if your right or wrong, seriously?!? I think a 30-45 seconds review in real time by the officials should be the time allowed to review the play. If it's a blatant offside, then it's overturned. If it's too close to call it offside, let it go. People love to watch goals and celebrate them. It's a shame the NHL is not seeing the problem with this. I feel the same as what the OP said. Too many goals are reviewed these days. Microscoping the offside review and delaying the game over a minute after the goal just kills the flow of the game.

 

[Satanphonehome]

Because one is a judgement call missed by the ref and other is a black and white stoppage rule.

What does this even mean?

Why is did Tuch "...place the stick, knee, foot, arm, hand or elbow in such a manner that causes his opponent to trip or fall..." a judgement call?

And did Tuch's "...skates completely cross the blue line dividing their offensive zone from the neutral zone before the puck completely crosses the same line..." not a judgement call.

Each tells the official what the rule is and asks him to judge whether or not it was violated?.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

I put the offside review in the same category as erecting statues and retiring numbers. It's all about making the league appear way more important than it is. As if getting the right call was a matter of life or death for a whole nation or something.